Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Deaf Students
Stephanie W. Cawthon
University of WisconsinMadison
(Moores, 1996). The last few years have seen the advent
of yet a new model, the inclusive classroom. Instead
of providing separate services for students with special
needs, inclusion integrates all students and services
into the life of the general education classroom (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA],
1996; Bunch, 1994; Giangreco, Baumgart, & Doyle,
1985). Although the goals of inclusion are relatively
consistent across schools, districts approach inclusion
dierently according to the needs of their students and
the available resources (Evans, Townsend, Duchnowski, & Hocutt, 1996; Phillips, Saponas, & Lubin, 1995;
Zigmond, 1995).
Available data on the success of inclusion with
younger deaf students are limited. Communication
needs of deaf students and the teaching practices in a
typical oral-only classroom are potential diculties
with inclusive education. Sign language interpreters
can be used to supplement teacher speech and facilitate
deaf student participation in classroom discourse. In
light of this sign language supplement, the purpose of
this study was to investigate the inclusive classroom environment in three areas: teacher speech to deaf and
hearing students, inclusive philosophies and teaching
strategies, and the role of an interpreter in classroom
communication.
(Geers & Moog, 1978). Children with hearing impairments often show significant delays in phoneme production, vocabulary, and syntax (Schirmer, 1985; Seewald, Ross, Giolas, & Yonovitz, 1985; Skarakis &
Prutting, 1977). It is assumed deaf students can improve their language through adequate exposure and
practice; however, Nelson, Loncke, and Camarata
(1993) emphasize that poor input at an early age and
severe delay require intensive interventions that focus
on enhancing strategies for all components of language.
Although delayed in other areas of language, deaf
students often have communicative skills (such as making a comment, request, or acknowledgment, etc.) that
match those of their hearing peers (Curtiss, Prutting, &
Lowell, 1979; Nicholas, Geers, & Kozak, 1994). Deaf
students rely more on nonverbal labeling techniques
than would be expected in children with normal hearing, but still express a full range of communicative
skills (Curtiss et al., 1979; Nicholas et al., 1994). These
skills are the foundation on which spoken language is
later developed (Skarakis & Prutting, 1977). Providing
nonverbal modes of communication in the classroom
may therefore be an important starting place for students developing their verbal language skills (Nicholas
et al., 1994).
213
214
Inclusive Practices
One of the greatest challenges in an inclusive classroom
is managing students with a wider range of abilities
Method
Participants
Two classrooms of students and teachers in an urban
public school participated in this study. The school site
contains the full-time deaf and hard-of-hearing program for the district. The first classroom was a combination kindergarten/first-grade (K/1) room and had
16 students, 7 deaf and 9 hearing. The second classroom was a combination second-/third-grade (2/3)
room with 2 deaf students and 12 hearing students.
215
216
Observation Period
Transcripts
A trained transcriber at the campus disability resource
center made transcripts of the teacher speech from audiotapes. Accuracy of the transcripts was verified with
observation content notes by the researcher and by an
assistant. The original transcription did not involve
segmentation into individual utterances. All sequential
talk by a single speaker was initially transcribed as a
single unit. In order to make the transcripts suitable for
analysis, the researcher separated each turn into single
utterances using the content notes from the observations. An utterance typically consisted of one sentence
or meaningful phrase. Reliability for utterance breakdown between the researcher and a blind assistant was
99%.
Transcripts were then analyzed using the Systematic Analysis for Language Transcripts, or SALT,
(Miller & Chapman, 1998) computer software package.
Measures of teacher complexity mirrored many of
those taken in Huntington and Watton (1986). This
study analyzed (1) number of utterances; (2) Mean
Length Utterance (MLU); (3) proportion of questions
to statements; and (4) proportion of open to closed
questions. Each of these measures was analyzed for
speech addressed to deaf students, hearing students,
and the classroom as a whole. All analyses were done
only on complete and intelligible utterances, or those
that did not have inaudible words or false starts. Complete and intelligible utterances totaled 97% for the K/
1 teacher and 81% for the 2/3 teacher.
SALT first tallied the number of utterances per
speaker and the MLU in words for each utterance. The
proportion of questions to statements was then tallied
based on utterance punctuation. Utterances were
coded as questions when there was a question mark and
Each observation period was scheduled so that it occurred when all students were participating in the
classroom activity. The interpreters and the teachers
were present for the entire period during each observation. In the K/1 classroom, the observation periods occurred during the first session in the morning. The
teacher and the interpreter sat in front of a carpeted
area and the students in a group on the floor. The
teacher went through a series of topics, such as the day
of the week, the date of the month, how many days they
had been in school, who was having lunch, and special
theme of the day (Groundhog Day, Valentines Day,
etc.). In the 2/3 classroom, observations occurred during the social studies lesson. The students sat in desks
(in two rows) in a semicircle and the teacher and interpreter sat in chairs or stood in the front of the room.
The class began each lesson with a brief introduction
to the task for the day, a discussion of the topic, and
some individual project work mediated by the teacher.
Although the task varied each observation day, all tasks
were thematically related to a long-term habitat project that lasted throughout the course of the study.
Before the first observation period in each class, I
visited the classrooms and introduced myself to the
students. I explained that I would be in the back of the
room taking notes on teacher behavior. Four observations of varying lengths (3060 minutes) were made in
each classroom over a 2-month period. I sat to the side
with an audiotape recorder and clipboard with a view
of both the sta and the students. For each utterance, I
noted the targeted audience, key words, subject matter,
and any relevant action. I took notes on whether
teacher speech was addressed to the whole group or an
individual student (specified deaf or hearing). Utterances in which the target audience was unclear were
coded by default as a group utterance. The process
was relatively simple because teachers made it clear to
whom they were speaking by calling on a student by
name or standing near the student. I was able to make
similar shorthand notes on many of the student initiations to provide greater context for teacher speech,
making it easier to determine to whom the teacher responded. I also noted when the interpreter would
speak for a deaf student when he or she signed. Limitations to this method include a lack of reliability on
whom the teacher was addressing (particularly when
student was not identified by name) and whom the interpreter was voicing if a child was using sign language.
The quality and completeness of the sign translation
were not recorded during these observations.
Interviews
Each teacher was interviewed separately by the researcher after the observations were completed. The 2/
3 interpreter also participated in the interview with the
2/3 teacher. Interviews were audiotaped with teacher
permission and transcribed at the campus disability resource center. Teachers were asked about their experiences in an inclusive classroom, their students individual needs, strategies for working with the interpreter,
and challenges of having an interpreter and deaf students in their classrooms. A list of the questions asked
is provided in the Appendix.
Discussion
Each research question as stated in the Purpose section
is addressed in turn, the measures of teacher speech
discussed first, followed by the results from teacher interviews and classroom observations.
Teacher Speech
Tables 1 and 2 display all data of teacher speech for the
K/1 and 2/3 teachers, respectively. Data collected via
classroom observations and transcripts were scored according to whether speech was directed to deaf or hearing children, but events were not tallied separately for
Deaf
students
Hearing
students
103
226
14.3
6.69
28
27%
7
25%
24.7
5.85
64
28%
37
27%
Deaf
students
Hearing
students
179
4.5
4.22
4
44%
7
75%
9.8
7.11
68
61%
17
54%
217
218
time. Instead of asking abstract questions about the lesson, many of these open questions referred to classroom behavior. Certainly, closed questions focused on
content may focus students on conceptual development more than open questions. Future research could
thus analyze not only frequency of open and closed
questions, but on their purpose as well.
Inclusive Strategies
219
220
primary strategy from that issue: an emphasis on communication with deaf students. Adjustments to or accommodations through spoken language, specifically,
were not deliberately identified as an inclusive strategy
for deaf students.
1. Class size. The teachers emphasized the importance of a reduced class load for successful inclusion.
This position was reiterated several times: Keeping
the numbers down so that they can receive the individual attention. If they were in a bigger room they would
not be addressed as well (2/3). The teachers felt that
an individualized approach requires smaller classes.
Teachers could spend more time with each individual
student: We get to know the kids a lot sooner. I know
where the students strengths are. I can build upon the
strengths and go from there. I group the kids, work
with them individually. The kids dont fit into the curriculum, the curriculum fits into the kids (K/1).
These two classes were smaller than average early
elementary school classes; the K/1 and 2/3 classrooms
had 15 and 18 students, respectively. Regular education
classrooms can enroll 25 or more students, depending
on district guidelines and space limitations. Even
though special funding programs help lower class size
in this school, the K/1 room had seven deaf students,
an exceptionally high number in one room. Indeed, the
teacher said that she was over her limit; typically she
would have one or two fewer students.
Although an inclusive classroom is not a special education room per se, it does have qualities that require
similar resources, space, and enrollment limitations.
The size of the class becomes part of the special education services brought into the general education classroom. For example, if deaf students are to be encouraged to participate, a lower student/teacher ratio
should allow the teacher to increase the number of initiations he or she makes to each student. The teacher
can rely less on whole group instruction and more on
individual interaction. The anticipated result is more
opportunities for linguistic expression and language
development. This strategy ties specifically to the general recommendation made by Vaughn and Schumm
(1996), to tailor the physical layout of the room to make
learning as accessible as possible.
2. Deaf culture. Both teachers focused on areas of
deaf culture to improve their interactions with deaf
Interpreters Role
Communication. Previous research on inclusive classrooms with deaf students have left unexplored the
dierent aspects of an interpreters role ( JDSDE, 4[3],
1999). Though much of his or her role may be intuitive,
we do not know much about how the interpreter specifically facilitates communication between regular education teachers, deaf students, and hearing students.
The purpose of this analysis was to provide examples
outright to go get the FM microphone. During the interview, the teacher said she did this to encourage responsibility in her deaf students.
Students also had to request an interpreter for situations that required communication assistance. For example, when the physical therapist came into the room,
the students had to ask the interpreter to come help
communicate with the therapist. Teachers said that
students had a right to have an interpreter but needed
to be proactive in obtaining that assistance. Sometimes
the sta would intentionally hold back to show students when to ask for help. For example, one student
needed to have assistance with some medication. Although the interpreter knew what the student required,
she waited for the student to initiate communication.
As described in the previous section, teachers inclusive philosophies were similar to those in previous
research in their focus on individual students. The
teachers did not, however, address their own communication with deaf students (interpreter-student communication is discussed in the next section). Questions
regarding teaching strategies did not generate specifications on how they talked to, used visual aids, or used
sign language with their students. Although analysis
of teacher speech, particularly in the 2/3 classroom,
showed dierent patterns in speech toward deaf students and hearing students, teachers did not name using simplified speech or asking questions as part of how
they met the individual needs of their students. Building on pragmatic language skills within advocacy
eorts was the only specific language strategy identified. This is striking when one considers language to
be the primary delay for young deaf students and communication a significant challenge for regular education teachers.
221
222
Notes
1. This article uses deaf to refer to students with severe
to profound hearing loss. However, Hyde, and Power (1992)
demonstrate that this may be a misleading designation, as the
communication needs of severely deaf and profoundly deaf are
not always the same.
2. A T-unit is the smallest number of words that make up
a meaningful syntactic unit. This may involve a whole sentence,
or in a complex sentence may also involve subordinating clauses
(Power, Hyde, & Leigh, 1996, p. 125).
3. This study looks at the role of an educational interpreter.
There can be other professionals who translate in a classroom
setting, such as an aide who signs or an interpretutor. The focus here is on interpreters who translate teacher speech in front
of a classroom and not in a tutorial setting.
4. Original transcriptions of speaker utterances were disaggregated into sentences in order to compare reasonably the
MLU with the MLS (mean length sentence) measure taken in
Huttington and Watton (1986). There are, however, several limitations to this approach: Comparisons cannot be considered an
exact match between the studies, and segmentation was not done
by the transcriber but post hoc by the researcher.
Appendix
Conclusions
This study investigated spoken language, inclusive philosophies, and teaching strategies in classrooms with
deaf students. This study highlighted themes that may
be useful in working with deaf students. This includes
providing sucient language input to make the deaf
students a part of the classroom dialogue, while at the
223
224
References
American
Speech-Language-Hearing-Association.
(1996,
Spring). Inclusive practices for children and youths with
communication disorders: Position statement and technical
report. Asha, 38, 3544.
Antia, S. (1999). The roles of special educators and classroom
teachers in an inclusive school. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 4, 203214.
Antia, S., & Stinson, M. (1999). Some conclusions on the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 246248.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of
inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes
and implications from the five cases. Journal of Special Education, 29, 163180.
Bunch, G. (1987). Designing an integration rating guide. Volta
Review, 89, 3547.
Bunch, G. (1994). An interpretation of full inclusion. American
Annals of the Deaf, 139, 150152.
Curtiss, S., Prutting, C., & Lowell, E. (1979). Pragmatic and semantic development in young children with impaired hearing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 8494.
Deno, S., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion for students with
mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 30, 345357.
Evans, D., Townsend, B., Duchnowski, A., & Hocutt, A. (1996).
Addressing the challenges of inclusion of children with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19,
180191.
Gaustad, M. (1999). Including the kids across the hall: Collaborative instruction of hearing, deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-
225